While working as a high-class escort for nine years, Rebecca Dakin saw hundreds of married men turn to her to fulfill sexual needs not being met by their wives. In 2009, she…became an infidelity counselor, using her experience…to teach women about how to satisfy their husbands…Dakin says that the number one reason men look outside of their relationships for sex is because they’re not getting enough of it at home…other reasons…include…feeling bored by the sex they receive…or feeling hesitant to share their intimate desires and fantasies with their spouse…

It’s surprising that this article on Bay Area sex workers (including Kitty Stryker and Siouxsie Q) who cater to the tech sector appeared on CNN, of all places; the phrase “human trafficking” occurs only once, in a very short passage about a vice cop. Maybe a few people over there are starting to wake up (or just seeing the writing on the wall). The same holds true in the next item:

…Mazar…is…Afghanistan’s unofficial capital of prostitution…[this is] partly [due]…to the city’s culture, which is considerably more forgiving of vice than is the rest of the country. Alcohol, though still illegal, can be found without too much trouble. Women…can be seen socializing with men in…public parks, a rare sight even in Kabul…In recent years, the city’s economy has flourished as its proximity to Central Asia and its relative peace and stability have transformed it into a trading hub…The sex trade has [always] existed in one form or another…even under the ultraconservative rule of the Taliban. But officials here say the rapid spread of mobile technology has made the business easier to manage and harder to detect…Women…host clients in a series of apartments…The point of contact is typically a man who orchestrates the meet-ups by cellphone. This has made the business tough to infiltrate for those police officials eager to crack down…[sex workers] are almost always impoverished and typically divorced or widowed, struggling to support a family…they risk death if they are discovered…

Even the police state seems unable to explain what legitimate public interest is served by jailing a 69-year-old quadriplegic polio victim who breathes through a ventilator for the “crime” of having sexual feelings. In 2011 he was “convicted” of helping sex workers find safe clients by running a screening service, and apparently the terms of his probation demand he not be sexual in any way; unsurprisingly, he has been caught violating that condition twice so far.

…As part of a legal settlement, Tennessee-based Stop Child Trafficking Now…will agree to follow a list of requirements if it returns to Missouri…some of the stipulations include [detailing] how donated funds will be spent in the Kansas City area…[and] an accurate depiction of the organization’s accomplishments. A 41 Action News investigation…followed the money trail and fact-checked some of SCTNow’s bold claims made on its website…hundreds of thousands of dollars [went] to fund private “special operatives” teams to gather undercover intelligence about child sex trafficking…[but] when pressed for more details, SCTNow could not point to a single case in the country where information lead to an arrest or prosecution…

…outlawing activities accomplishes only one thing…It tells citizens that government has decided something is Wrong…Sending A Message is the principle …behind the Swedish state’s…law against buying sex, and…behind all the [others]…who want the law for their countries. Everyone wants to be seen to be Taking a Stand against immoral behaviour. Try bringing evidence into the conversation and you will quickly learn how irrelevant it is; you can find Swedish promoters themselves saying things like We know it doesn’t work but we want to be in the forefront of Gender Justice…Any other claim about what prohibitionist laws achieve when they outlaw social activities like sex, drinking and drugs is not supported by evidence. That’s because, after the law is passed and the message is sent, individuals deal with prohibition deviously…So buyers and sellers of drugs, alcohol and sex become creative, some of them maintaining a disapproving stance in public at the same time…

A new study, designed and carried out by the network of female sex workers in Latin America and Caribbean (REDTRASEX), has documented legislation that affects sex work – as well as detailing what this means in practice…independent sex work is not prohibited in any of the countries studied. What is criminalized…is proxenetism (or ‘pimping’) and…“immoral” behaviours or disturbances to the peace or public order are applied in relation to sex work. Furthermore…confusing sex workers…with trafficked persons…silences the legitimate voices of sex workers and actually blocks discussions on how to end human trafficking. This creates a framework of legitimacy for police repression and state violence…[and] results in a culture of secrecy around sex work, increasing stigma and the vulnerability of sex workers…

Despite a total lack of evidence (“[trafficking] convictions [declined] 13 percent”), Chicken Licken and other overly-excitable barnyard fowl ordered EU member states “to get a move on with adopting tough new rules against human trafficking or face sanctions as a first report on the problem showed ‘modern-day slavery’ worsening”. Obviously math isn’t the typical politician’s strong suit, but one would think even they could comprehend that the larger estimates might have something to do with the fact that they “[broadened] the definition of the crime” two years ago; now they’re claiming “the trafficking business is second-only in illegal activity to the weapons trade”, up from the equally-bogus assertion that it was third. Anyone want to take bets on whether it will rise to first before the hysteria collapses?

…we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy? We can only hope…let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage…Legalized polygamy in the United States is…constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive…we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like…Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process…It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice…

…Who are the organizers of this campaign trying to communicate with? My suspicion is…people who already have a soft analysis of prostitution gleaned from watching 20/20…or true crime TV shows about sex trafficking busts…who is going to step up and be “in favor” of “modern day slavery” or “sex trafficking?” …I really want to know what it’s going to take for people to actually think about how complicated the sex trade is, and that it’s not all the same, and that ads that make us all the victims of overwhelming violence don’t do anything to actually improve our circumstances…

…Fox 2000…[is] adapting Go the Fuck to Sleep for the big screen…the bedtime-story parody, written by Adam Mansbach and illustrated by Ricardo Cortés, has become something of a viral hit…It is unclear how the filmmakers plan to turn what is essentially a nursery rhyme with one punchline…into an entire feature- length film…

I hope this proves lucrative for Ricardo and also opens more doors for him.

Lust is to the other passions what the nervous fluid is to life; it supports them all, lends strength to them all…ambition, cruelty, avarice, revenge, are all founded on lust. – Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade

One year ago today I published “Election Day”, which told of the prohibitionist persecution by power-mad perverts which eternally accompanies the approach of elections in the U.S. And while we do have one story of such a politically-motivated campaign of mass victimization today, the real unifying feature of this column is the frustrated male need for sex.

In this column I suggested that many a marriage would be happier if the wife were to be a bit more understanding of her husband’s sexual needs; I stated that “ignorant modern women not only feel that husbands should be satisfied with whatever sexual pickings their wives choose to dole out, however meager or restricted, but also refuse to understand that a starving man will seek food elsewhere if it isn’t available at home…If [accommodating his needs] seems too difficult, you can certainly just keep on the course you’ve set, but if your relationship hits the rocks solely because you couldn’t be bothered to tend the wheel there is nobody to blame but yourself.” I’m sure at least a few female readers felt I was overstating the importance of this; the neofeminist propaganda that sex is not a need is widely accepted in American society. But as this October 1stHuffington Post article explains, a husband’s sexual satisfaction is the single greatest indicator of whether a marriage will succeed:

…Kristina Dzara at Southern Illinois University…in her article, Assessing the Effect of Marital Sexuality on Marital Disruption…used the Marriage Matters Panel Survey of Newly Wed Couples that followed over 1000 couples in Louisiana from 1998 to 2004…The author used three measures of sexuality in the first three to six months of marriage — frequency of sexual intercourse, sexual satisfaction, and agreement between spouses about their sex life. Dzara used these measures to predict divorce by the 5th year of marriage. As we know, there are a lot of factors can contribute to divorce — marital quality, early marriage, cohabitation and many more. In order to get a better understanding of the effects of sexuality in marriage, the author controlled for many of these other factors.

…On average these young couples had intercourse between one and several times a week, but frequency didn’t seem to matter…For wives, satisfaction with physical intimacy decreased the likelihood of divorce, but overall marital quality and satisfaction with intimacy appeared to have the same effect. In other words, marital quality and satisfaction with sex could not be teased apart for wives…[However,] the probability of divorce is dramatically reduced when husbands report being sexually satisfied. Dzara writes, “a couple with a husband who has the highest self-rated satisfaction with physical intimacy, compared to a husband with the lowest self-rated satisfaction with physical intimacy, decreases their odds of experiencing a marital disruption by around 83.7%.” Overall, husbands’ satisfaction with physical intimacy is a stronger influence on divorce than any other measure in this study.

Somewhat surprisingly, agreement between husbands and wives about their sex life did not seem to have much influence on their likelihood of divorce. “Agreement about one’s sex life” may be bound up with many other factors of agreement. In short, sex seems to matter to healthy marriages — not too big of a surprise. For wives, satisfaction with physical intimacy and marital satisfaction seem to be rolled into one overall factor. Not so for men. When men report being satisfied with their marriage, this reduces their likelihood for divorce, and if they also report being sexually satisfied, then divorce is even more unlikely…

I didn’t really need a scientific study to tell me this, but validation is always welcome.

The second part of this column discusses the case of “a man so sexually frustrated that all judgment and basic respect for others flies out the window, completely superseded by the need for sexual gratification through a perverse fantasy of sexually violating a woman unnoticed.” To be precise, he masturbated into a woman’s water bottle and was apparently surprised when she figured it out. Nor is he alone in either his filthiness or his stupidity, as reported in this October 6th AP article:

…Anthony Garcia admitted he tainted a sample of the yogurt he was handing out at Sunflower Market (in Albuquerque, New Mexico) in January. He also admitted putting some of his semen on a plastic spoon that he placed with the yogurt. Garcia then approached a female customer and offered her a sample…The woman told police that after tasting the sample, she spit on the floor several times and wiped her mouth on the garment she was wearing to get the taste out of her mouth. Investigators collected samples of the woman’s spit from the floor and took the garment she was wearing as evidence…Garcia was linked to the yogurt through DNA samples…[but] lied to investigators about the case…Garcia faces up to three years of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. He has been in federal custody since his arrest in July, and remained detained pending his sentencing, which has yet to be scheduled.

I presume this is a federal case because its occurrence in a supermarket made it a violation of the federal food purity laws. Presumably, a 32-year-old man who works as a food sample distributor in a supermarket couldn’t afford an escort, but a streetwalker or at least some porn might’ve been a wise investment. I’m rather beginning to wonder what the deal is with Albuquerque, though. And here’s a warning to any would-be spooge sneakers out there: Nearly all adult women know what the stuff tastes like, moron.

Last November I predicted that “more and more prohibitionists would shift to the Swedish rhetoric in order to capitalize on “human trafficking” hysteria, deflect arguments based on women’s right to control our own bodies and win the support of fence-sitters and even some misguided whores.” Police departments have been especially enthusiastic about “end demand” rhetoric because it allows them to attack other men instead of women, thus pumping up their male egos by denying women agency and feeding their “pimps and hos” masturbatory fantasies while simultaneously avoiding criticism of their violence against sex workers and allowing them the pretense of “saving victims” when they’re actually persecuting adults for private behavior. Early last month, police departments across the U.S. staged a joint victimization campaign against clients; here’s an October 11th story from the Chicago Tribune:

Cook County sheriff’s officers…took part in a nationwide prostitution sting…that netted more than 200 arrests – most of which were of men soliciting sex acts…Dubbed “The National Day of Johns Arrest,” the crackdown involved police in eight different jurisdictions targeting commercial sex on streets, in brothels and over the internet, according to a statement from the sheriff’s department, which said the enforcement action was the first nationally coordinated operation of its kind. According to the statement, the pilot program is expected to be the first of several national sweeps to be aimed primarily at men who seek out prostitutes and who are increasingly seen by law enforcement as the true perpetrators of the sex trade, rather than the women who are often economically desperate or the victims of pimps. In addition to the three Chicago-area departments, police in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Cincinnati and Newport News, Va., participated. All told, the various departments arrested 233 people – 216 of them men seeking to patronize a prostitute – and levied $238,000 in fines…The action was conducted in conjunction with the Hunt Alternatives Fund, a Massachusetts-based social foundation that is attempting to combat demand for commercial sex and sex trafficking in the United States.

You may recall that the Hunt Alternatives Fund also bankrolled Melissa Farley’s recent attempt to cast all men as abusive monsters; as Laura Agustín pointed out over a year ago, funding campaigns to hunt men down like animals is only one part of Hunt’s and her neofeminist allies’ larger crusade to make sex workers’ lives miserable (without being seen as the misogynists they are) by targeting “demand”. I know that a number of my readers are interested in the Men’s Rights Movement; I suggest that those of you who are ought to spread the word about Swanee Hunt’s repugnant and dangerous crusade against male sexuality and female sexual autonomy.

It’s all that the young can do for the old, to shock them and keep them up to date. – George Bernard Shaw

One year ago today I published “The Camel’s Nose”, an early miscellanea column; I hadn’t yet started grouping updates and miscellanea as separate columns, so the post is actually composed of one new topic (Congress’ first major attempt to gain control of the internet) and two updates. Since then (with the help of my diligent readers) my access to relevant articles has grown considerably, so I hereby present you with twelve updates, some of them referring to multiple (though connected) articles. Whew!

In this column I expressed the philosophy that “When one has a living creature under one’s care, it is one’s responsibility to take care of that creature’s needs, or else to arrange for someone else to do so. And if you shirk that responsibility, you only have yourself to blame for the inevitable and foreseeable consequences.” Usually it’s women who tend to be lax in this department, and their neglect keeps whores in business. But a number of my readers have said that it’s not unusual to see the opposite nowadays, and this story from the Telegraph of September 5th (called to my attention by regular reader Marla) is an example of it:

…France’s civil code…states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”. A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”. The rare legal decision came after the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom. A judge in Nice…granted the divorce and ruled the husband…was solely responsible for the split. But the 47-year-old ex-wife then took him back to court demanding 10,000 euros in compensation for “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”. The ex-husband claimed “tiredness and health problems” had prevented him from being more attentive between the sheets…but [the] judge…ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent. By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”

I certainly agree in principle, though I would’ve settled with naming the husband at fault rather than actually awarding monetary damages. It’s interesting to see some of the online commentary on this story, which seems to think the idea that spouses owe each other sex is somehow weird even though it should be obvious. OK, guys, I’m always standing up for your right to get sufficient nookie from your wives, but now it’s the ladies’ turn; if you’re not putting out as much as she needs, get with the program!

In this item I reported that Gardasil, the vaccine against the human papillomavirus, isn’t reaching the girls who need it most: “70% of the girls who are most at risk for venereal warts are either not getting the shot or else failing to show up for the two boosters.” I stated that in my opinion, the real reason for the lack of interest isn’t any of the faux reasons advanced by opponents but rather plain American prudishness:

If there were a vaccine for HIV or hepatitis people might get it because those diseases can also be spread by blood, but if there were one for herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea or even chlamydia I’m sure it would be just as unpopular as this one. And the reason for that is the same reason that the rate of venereal disease is vastly higher among university students than it is among streetwalkers: The bizarre but popular delusion, encouraged by cops and religious fundamentalists, that only “bad girls” take precautions against venereal diseases.

Despite her nonsensical claim that Gardasil can cause brain damage (an idea so farfetched a team of bioethicists bet her $11,000 she couldn’t substantiate it), this is no doubt the real reason behind would-be presidential candidate Michelle Bachman’s opposition to the vaccine:

Physicians are bracing for more parents to refuse the HPV vaccine…[as] comments by [Michelle Bachman] stoke growing and unfounded fears about a whole class of common immunizations needed to fight disease…Bachmann first raised the issue during a Republican presidential debate on Monday as a swipe at Republican rival and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who issued an executive order in 2007 mandating girls get the HPV vaccine as part of a school immunization requirement…she questioned the state’s authority to force “innocent little 12-year-old girls” to have a “government injection” that was “potentially dangerous.” The following day, she told NBC’s “Today” show the story of a woman from Tampa, Florida, who approached her after the debate and said her daughter became “mentally retarded” after getting the Gardasil vaccine…Physician groups…rushed out statements defending the safety of Merck’s vaccine and Cervarix made by GlaxoSmithKline, whose most common side effects include a sore arm, a rash and fever…The [president of the American Academy of Pediatrics] says there is absolutely no scientific validity to Bachmann’s statement…”Since the vaccine has been introduced (in 2006), more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record”…But no amount of proof will suffice for some families, who fear that even a small percentage of children may be harmed…according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 32 percent of adolescent girls last year had gotten all three shots of the HPV vaccine…

Two doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine may offer just as much protection…as the three-dose regimen now being used…[according to] data from…[a] trial [involving] 7,466 women…20 percent of them got only one dose or two doses for a variety of reasons. After four years, the researchers found, two doses…offered the same level of protection against HPV infection as three. Even one dose offered a high level of protection. While the researchers said that more studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the fewer doses, they wrote in a journal news release: “Our clinical efficacy data provide suggestive evidence that an HPV vaccine program that provides fewer doses to more women could potentially reduce cervical cancer incidence more than a standard three-dose program that uses the same total number of doses but in fewer women”…

Getting it down to one dose would be better still, reducing both cost and attrition; after that, the only obstacle left to protecting girls from this potentially fatal disease is parental ignorance and stupidity.

In this column I mentioned a new mega-brothel in Spain, pointing out that such bordellos

…can only help to solidify our position; large and prominent businesses not only protect their own interests, but also enrich a number of other nearby and related businesses which will also devote money to stopping any attempts by control freaks to stop the gravy train. The legal efforts of big, wealthy casinos generally tend to help little truck stops with slot machines and have made both crooked gambling dens and police persecution of back-room card games a thing of the past, and the legal efforts of big, wealthy brothels will also tend to assist small brothels and solitary practitioners of the trade.

Given that premise, this item from Australia (called to my attention by regular reader Stick) might be considered somewhat bad news:

A proposal for what would have been Australia’s largest brothel has been unanimously rejected by the City of Sydney Council…Lord Mayor Clover Moore told the meeting there was little doubt such a large brothel would have an impact of its neighbours…Council officers had reported the business had a record of good management since it opened in 2002, but the meeting heard there were some residents who did not agree…”Residents have told councillors about the impacts from traffic and antisocial behaviour. Those impacts are expected to increase if the size is doubled. It is the size I think that is of great concern,” Councillor Moore said…Several councillors made clear they supported the operation of registered brothels within the city, but not of the size proposed.

Taxes and other business-derived fees are like a drug to politicians, and once they’re hooked they’re unlikely to kick the habit; because of that one must be wary of governmental attempts to keep sex businesses small (and therefore less lucrative from a tax standpoint). Still, the councilors made it clear that it was the size of the business that was the problem rather than its nature, so the rejection probably isn’t any major cause for alarm.

A true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires. – Robert A. Heinlein

Today’s column is for the ladies. Gentlemen are certainly welcome to read, comment and share the column with the women in your lives (if you dare), but my comments will all be directed toward the ladies and will therefore assume female gender. I’ve been thinking about doing this one for a while, but a few factors (including some emails I’ve received and day-before-yesterday’s column) have at last inspired me to sit down and actually write it. If any of my female readers have specific technique questions which I can’t cover herein without being graphic (sorry, guys), I’ll be happy to answer them privately via confidential email.

One night at UNO I was sitting around talking with several other girls, and when one said something about putting out for her boyfriend another replied haughtily, “I would never give a man sex unless I wanted it, too.”

Even back in those pre-professional days I considered that sort of attitude completely asinine, so I asked her, “Do you have a dog?” (knowing full well she did).

“What?” she asked, annoyed at my apparent change of subject.

“It’s a straightforward question,” I replied; “Do you, or do you not, have a dog?”

“You know I do!” she snapped.

“And you walk it every night?”

“Of course!”

“What if you don’t want to?”

“I still have to anyway, or she’ll go on the carpet during the night!”

“What if it’s raining?”

“Then my dad takes her for me!” The dumb bunny had no idea where I was going, but the smiles told me the other girls did.

“In other words, you care more about a dog than you do about a man.”

“How do you get that?”

“When one has a living creature under one’s care, it is one’s responsibility to take care of that creature’s needs, or else to arrange for someone else to do so. And if you shirk that responsibility, you only have yourself to blame for the inevitable and foreseeable consequences.”

Unfortunately, this girl’s attitude is not at all unusual nowadays; women used to understand that men had sexual needs which it was a wife’s responsibility to provide for. But as I discussed in my column of July 21st, decades of lies and neofeminist propaganda that men and women are the same and that women should only accept sex when they desire it (and for no other reason) have done tremendous damage to the male-female dynamic; ignorant modern women not only feel that husbands should be satisfied with whatever sexual pickings their wives choose to dole out, however meager or restricted, but also refuse to understand that a starving man will seek food elsewhere if it isn’t available at home. Every escort hears it over and over again: “My wife doesn’t give me sex any more,” or “after the kids my wife lost interest,” or some other variation on it. These men have no reason to lie; they want us to understand that they are driven by need, and the sadness in their voices is unmistakable. The statement that “no woman should have to have sex if she doesn’t want it” ignores the simple fact that in today’s world a woman does not need to marry for support any longer, just as my silly schoolmate did not need to own a dog. Getting married is a free choice, and carries responsibilities with the privileges. If you refuse to take care of your dog you should give him to somebody who will, and if you refuse to give sex to your husband you should either divorce him or suggest he satisfy his needs elsewhere with your blessing. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too; a man is NOT a woman, and if you expect him to respect your choice not to have sex with him, you in turn must respect his choice to get it from somebody else.

Women who actually starve their husbands are in the minority, though; the more typical wife merely offers such repetitive and unpalatable fare that her husband simply loses his appetite for her cooking and yearns to dine elsewhere. One of my correspondents recently wrote, “I know so many women who say their men are apt to fall asleep in front of the TV or play on the computer all evening; sex seems to be not very high on their list of priorities.”

I replied, “Not to be mean, but what isn’t ‘high on their list of priorities’ is boring, repetitive sex with their dumpy, frowsy wives who sit around in sweatsuits with short hair and only want sex when they’re interested in the way they want it, and everything else is greeted with ‘That’s disgusting!’ or ‘You’re a pervert!’ or ‘I’m not gonna do that!’ Those same men are plenty interested in young-looking, well-kept escorts who have maintained their figures, dress in a feminine manner and will give them the kind of sex they want when they want it.”

When you’re done jumping up and down, screaming at me and calling me a bitch, sit down and listen to what I’m trying to tell you. I understand that some women’s figures go south after having kids and that it’s difficult to reclaim them, but I’ll bet most husbands understand it as well; that’s not what I’m talking about. I’ll use my own family as an example; I am the eldest of four sisters who all look much alike and started out with similar figures, though our personalities are all different. All three of my sisters had two children each; the third sister is most like me in personality and still looks hot at 41, the youngest is athletic and has a very trim figure at 40, and the second is fat and dumpy. The two younger sisters and I dress attractively and wear our hair in flattering styles; the second wears sweatsuits and “fat clothes” and chopped her hair off boy-short while she was pregnant with her first baby. Finally, the two younger sisters and I treat our husbands well, while the second won’t lift a finger for hers; though I’m not privy to the details of my sisters’ sex lives, does anyone here have any doubt whose husband is most likely to cheat? There are no great biological differences between us; it was the psychological differences which caused the one sister to stop trying, and her appearance mirrors her behavior. Every aspect of her dress and grooming screams “I don’t care whether you find me attractive or not!” to her husband and everyone else with eyes to see.

Just being overweight is not the problem, though many women love to use it as an excuse. Lots of men like plump women, and I daresay the average man whose wife has put on too much weight would still be happy with her sexually if she made every other effort to attract him. Don’t believe me? Turn off the goddamned TV, put down Cosmo and surf the escort sites on the internet for a while; you’ll find quite a few “BBW” (Big Beautiful Woman) escorts, women who are definitely fat but still make the effort to look nice and give men what they need sexually. Yes, a good figure goes a long way (and for most women is very sustainable with sensible eating and regular exercise), but dress, grooming and attitude go much farther, especially for a woman who has the advantage of already being married to the man she’s trying to attract!

If you want to keep your husband sexually happy the best advice I can give you is, get the word “no” out of your vocabulary! Any woman over the age of 16 should have noticed that all men are, to put it bluntly, perverts by female standards; as the picture at right reminds us, everything turns men on! Yes, a lot of what they like is weird or gross or nasty or even funny to most women; so what? Do you personally have to judge dog food palatable before you give it to your dog? As long as what your husband wants in bed doesn’t actually hurt you or give you serious doubts about his masculinity, what difference does it make? You’ve had his semen inside you hundreds of times, so why does it matter if he wants to put it on your butt, tits, stomach, face or hair sometimes? And trust me, I know better than you how it tastes; if you’re having sex for the flavor, you’re doing it for the wrong reason. He wants to tie you up? Let him! Great Aphrodite, you trust him with your life every day, so why is this different? Are you afraid you’ll like it? And why is it too much trouble to wear stockings and a garter belt for him? We all wore them every day until pantyhose were invented! You liked playing dress-up when you were seven; reclaim the fun and pretend to be a nurse or hooker or whatever it is he wants. You might enjoy it!

Even if you’re afraid of something he wants (such as anal sex), would it kill you to at least consider it? Don’t refuse him out of hand; think about it. Ask questions and do research on the internet. Work up to it by slow stages, and ask him to be patient with you; if all else fails, see if you can work out some kind of compromise. So his fantasy is to have both you and your sister? I don’t blame you for refusing to do that, but how about compromising by hiring an escort to be the other woman? Don’t worry, she’s not after your husband! She’s just there to do her job, which in this case is to allow the two of you to explore a fantasy which would otherwise be impossible.

Even if you already do all this stuff, your husband may still hire prostitutes; the male animal craves variety, and some are unwilling or unable to put that craving aside. Trust me, sister, this is not something to worry about unless you can’t afford it or it becomes an obsession (too much of anything is bad). He’s not going to leave you for a whore, and she’s a lot safer than an affair (as I discussed in my column of August 2nd). So if you do find out your husband has been occasionally indulging in the hobby, do yourself a favor and consider all of your options before having a hissy-fit and doing something you may later regret.

If all of this seems too difficult, you can certainly just keep on the course you’ve set, but if your relationship hits the rocks solely because you couldn’t be bothered to tend the wheel there is nobody to blame but yourself. In the final analysis you married your husband for a reason, most likely nowadays because you loved him. If you don’t love him any more, why are you still with him? And if you do still love him, isn’t making him happy worth a bit of effort?

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".